They ought to blast the sick behavior of clerics, they ought to blast the fact that they have lost their moral authority, because they are more concerned in advancing a Marxist agenda,
rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Do you think that modern evangelicals are salvation - focused
rather than gospel - focused?
So we see that
rather than the gospels contradicting each other, all of the accounts blended together give a fully picture of what went on that evening.
The true dilemma is with churches who preach the American dream
rather than the gospel of Jesus.
I am saying that religion is — or can be — a «preparation for the gospel»
rather than the gospel itself.
History has not been kind on attempts to enforce moral change via law
rather than the gospel, such as Oliver Cromwell's puritanical society.
Yet this «mainstream» Christianity joke is more into trying sweep sin under the rug and focusing on junk like Chick - fil -
a rather than the Gospel and the ONLY way.
Did this bear witness to whiteness
rather than the Gospel?
Not exact matches
Read Revelations and look this up * Spirit to be poured out on all flesh (Joel 2:28) * Universal apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:1 - 4) * The watering down of the
gospel, teaching the doctrines of man
rather than those of God.
As one person said to me, «If we are serious about sharing the
gospel around the world, shouldn't we be glad that we still have missionaries who pray
rather than setting up a bureau of prayer inspectors!»
Many follow his teaching
rather than what Jesus said in the
gospels.
In such a time, appeals to the spiritual greatness of the Russian nation may be an essential witness to the
Gospel rather than a capitulation to the powers that be.
I suggest a commentary to the
gospels rather than speculation so as not to come across unwise.
And in doing so, they'd gotten stuck inside what Polish philosopher Wojciech Chudy, an intellectual great - grandson of John Paul II, called the post-Kantian «trap of reflection»: thinking - about - thinking - about - thinking,
rather than thinking about reality — in this case, the
Gospel and its truths.
[101] Sanders points out that the author would regard the
gospel as theologically true as revealed spiritually even if its content is not historically accurate [101] and argues that even historically plausible elements in John can hardly be taken as historical evidence, as they may well represent the author's intuition
rather than historical recollection.
How come this Reverend talked about the
Gospel of Christ
rather than telling us how filthy America and the white man is like Reverend Wright always did?»
Rather than viewing conflict as the second greatest evil, conflict is an opportunity to grow and give the world something beautiful, a picture of the
gospel, a picture of God.
Its sad that religion is the
gospel of many churchs today
rather than a real relationship with Christ based on his grace
rather than works.Just as cains offering wasnt acceptable to the Lord its the same for churchs today the Lord is not pleased by our efforts he does nt need our efforts they do not build Gods kingdom nor do mans programmes..
Donald Trump had an encounter with the
gospel of Jesus Christ and
rather than propping him up, it made him uncomfortable... as tends to happen with anyone who is actually paying attention, myself included.
What he preaches is called a «Prosperity
Gospel» which basically teaches that God existst to satisfy my desires
rather than the other way araound.
It was felt that the
gospel reflected Hellenistic ideas
rather than a Jewish approach.
Rather than staying becalmed in the sacristy, the sanctuary, and the presbytery, the clergy of his day, he urged, should lead a demanding,
Gospel - centered life of proclaiming the Word and celebrating the sacraments, nourishing their people with the tangible realities God had entrusted to human hands as pathways to the Trinity: the Bible and the Eucharist.
It is probably best to think of John's
gospel as a meditation on the meaning of the life of Jesus
rather than primarily a historical record, although at times he seems to preserve an early historical tradition.
But the value of the book lies in the interpretation of Jesus» teaching as a whole, and this interpretation becomes more
rather than less convincing if we ascribe to Jesus himself more of the
Gospel content
than Professor Bultmann is ready to do.
It seems that, in the midst of black Christian outcry in 2013, the majority of white Christians pressed the snooze button on racial justice, sleepwalking into their churches where an individualistic
gospel that doesn't call them to say or do anything about racial injustice is preached, where white culture,
rather than Christ, reigns supreme, and where the problems and perspectives of black people are ignored.
Prideful atheists always staring in the mirror at their noses
rather than reading the
Gospel.
Even if someone named Jesus with some sort of causal connection to the Jesus in the
gospels existed, if you just blandly say that Jesus really existed, you sound like you are confirming the largely fictional being of the
gospels rather than someone who stands oin some real but in many ways indirect, even tenuous relationship to this fictional character.
On the contrary, we put up with anything
rather than hinder the
gospel of Christ.
Bonhoeffer maintained that interpreting the Bible in terms of the present age is to make man the measure of the
Gospel rather than to learn from the
Gospel the true norm for human existence.
Rather than confront these evils, our nation turns to the Prosperity
Gospel nonsense in order to rationalize our immorality.
The title «Son of God» in Mark's
gospel,
rather than deriving from Jesus himself, seems to be used by the evangelist to emphasize the true nature of Jesus.
It will live out the
gospel among the people of this world by serving, living, and loving them,
rather than just teaching facts.
I believe that while the apostle Paul instructed some women not to teach, he encouraged others to prophesy, teach, and lead, and so we have to look at the epistles in their totality and in their context
rather than lifting a few verses out to restrict women from preaching the
gospel.
Try following the
gospels rather than the old testament for a change.
In both the
Gospel of John and 1 John, the usage of sin in connection to death and life seems to always refer to eternal / spiritual death,
rather than physical death.
The community remains intact as long as its members seek to please God on the basis of the revealed, circumcision - free
gospel rather than seeking to please other humans.
Rather than fearing or cheering the arrival of the End of the World, can we all just keep our heads on straight, and keep our heads out of the clouds, and focus instead on living the
Gospel by loving and serving others, and making this world better and safer for all of us?
Rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae of this or that passage, he shows that the achievement of the
gospels is to help us understand why discipleship makes sense, why the Jesus whose life they capture in different ways is worthy of following.
A disembodied Word expressed in creedal statements, which were constructed to defend orthodoxy against heresy
rather than proclaim the faith, will not communicate the joy and redemptive power of the
gospel.
The word about sin is the penultimate
rather than the ultimate word of the
gospel, which witnesses to the power of God, in both judgment and mercy, to provide by grace the resources we can not provide for ourselves.
I would
rather one check out claims for themselves
rather than taking whatever some book or someone else says as
gospel.
Carey speaks of going «into all the world to preach the
gospel to every creature» (i.e., to every human being),
rather than «to the whole creation» as intended by the Greek.
In fact, when they were thinking of its content
rather than its form, they spoke of it as «the Good News» (in our translation, «
Gospel»).
The
gospel insists that human beings are the greatest good, and that everyone's needs are best met when we live in community, caring for each other
rather than looking out for Number One.
Awareness that there are particular cultural situations
rather than a universal culture within which the
gospel takes form raises, of course, the obvious question: what is the
gospel?
-- let us say an Aryan, a Hindu, a Greek, or a member of the Roman proletariat, something would surely be found to betray this fact in the diversified
gospel tradition we possess; or if, say, he had had no connection with John the Baptist, or had not criticized the scribes, or had been stoned to death
rather than crucified.
Evelyn Underhill once said very wisely that the
gospel is concerned with the divine indicative — «what God has done, is doing, and will do» —
rather than with an human imperative, or what we should be doing, although the latter should be an inevitable consequence to the former.
Rather than accepting as authoritative Scripture's total witness, the interpreter uses either his subjective experience with the Christ, or his contemporary sensibility, or the church's traditional understanding of the
gospel, or perhaps some combination of these to judge what reasonably the «whole Bible» might be saying.
bit, but I thought we were focusing on what Jesus actually said as a whole via his teaching and parables
rather than what he did or what the
gospel writers or St. Paul said.
Hundreds of Protestant and Catholic thinkers were polled for ideas on the script, and most endorsed the plan of sticking to one
Gospel — Luke —
rather than blending
Gospel accounts, Eshleman said.